>> next, booktv interview the university of pennsylvania has, richard gelles about his book, "the third lie." in the book, professor gelles argues that social programs don't work and suggest a different approach. this is about 10 minutes. >> well, booktv is on the road. we are in philadelphia at the university of pennsylvania interviewing some professors who also happen to be authors. they want to introduce you to the dean of the university of pennsylvania school of social policy and practice. this is richard gelles on your screen. one of his books, his most recent is called "the third lie: why government programs don't work- and a blueprint for
change." dr. gelles, i am here from the government and i'm here to help you. is that not true? just could not true. >> host: why not? >> guest: because most social government programs designed to help people don't help. in some instances it is little more, i hate saying this, but the do-gooder full employment act that provides lots of jobs to people who would like to help, but at the end of the day if you look at whether the needle has been moved and people have been helped by substantial government programs and substantial amounts of money, the bottom line is very rarely are people helped. that was a story worth telling. the idea came to me as i was being smuggled into the back door of the statehouse in the state of hawaii from meeting with the secretary, the speaker of the house.
hawaii was spending half a billion dollars on education. part that was subsidized by the federal government under the dividuals with disabilities education act. the rest is the taxpayers of hawaii and we had been there for two years to see whether the half a billion dollars is helping special education children. we've gone through 500 files were discovered almost no hope. but the services were being provided. lots of money diverted and inappropriate ways the commissioner of education for the state of hawaii had given a $250,000 grant to run a special education program. her last job was hula dancer. it seemed a little odd at face value and turned out not surprisingly she was having a relationship with the
commissioner. people giving 30, 40, $50,000 grants for horseback riding. i wouldn't have it about the fact that that an isolated case. but i've been in the field to social policy for 40 years and i can't see this happen again and again as i do now, maybe it's time to tell the story is the social programs people argue about that they don't want to cut the funding for, that her sacred cows in fact do not do a whole lot of good. head start -- i'm sure it made no friends when i started a chapter by saying hazardous than $8 billion program. nobody wants to cut it. it's never in the debate and get all of the positive educational effects of head start or come by the time children get to the third grade. why is that? a head start program itself only just educational readiness.
it doesn't do with the underlying social problems that affected to are means tested eligible and head start. the key to why let a programs don't work as they are targeted program based on some sort of income eligibility for special eligibility and an enormous amount of fun and energy goes into the means testing and eligibility testing, leaving very little money for the actual programs. so the program send it being low dose, very minimal and are not sufficient to change the outcomes of children are just providing head start programs doesn't do with the fact that come from violent homes, but neighborhoods, poverty, homelessness, food insufficiency. you just can't overcome deficits by providing a head start education program.
so that's where the boat began and most of the people who advised me it's a very interesting book. i'm sure cannot fox tv. that was not my goal. michael was not not to be equated. as i said that they do part 2 of the book to say there is some social programs that are. maybe we can learn a lesson from them. the big quiz in the course of writing a book i conducted import to death meta-children thought is that everyone i know it's a tie with a three government rosecrans could have been the most effect within the last 65 years. unless everyone of of my academic friends with a head start and i would say wrong. no evidence of works. the most effective government programs in chronological order, social security committee g.i. bill and medicare in 1965.
there will be some pushback about that. even "usa today" had an editorial this week that said social security is a pay-as-you-go program. no, it's not. i could never go broke provided you don't take the trust fund and spending on government debt, which is what we've done for 60 years. social security is all but ended poverty among those over 65. medicare has all but dead significant health care pub among those over 65 and the g.i. bill gets little credit in 2012 or bbq social policy that built the american middle class. the american middle class was built on two basic components of the g.i. bill for access to education, affordable access to education, which is a voucher program. the money went to them and not
disclosed in the second with access to affordable housing. if you roll the clock ahead to 2012, why is the middle-class suffering? don't have access to affordable high-quality education. students had taken him vastly much debt in my two sons, 3834 years of age who have good incomes, in one case more than nine, couldn't even buy a house recently because the price of housing exceeds their income. they are in the top 10% of income in the united states. with the middle-class kid by housing, the middle-class -- programs that don't work, programs that do work in the intellectual challenge which took the longest. to put behind him was if you
know these programs don't work you get a fix on wy and this paragraph to have a sunlight and you're developing a social program or a blueprint for a program that would work and not turn out to be quite tricky. you would like to help children. you'd like to do a social disadvantage of children and the robot turns out simply not in the political cards weather on the left of center, right of center or right of the center. our government is not about to help children by attracting significant social resources today. so one of the reasons most of our programs fail if they give so little to the parent and a dozen overcome much of the social disadvantage. that stopped me cold. if they had to help children if
he can't get the money to them before they're 18? the result was he can't. you have to read until 18. i beg byard and adopted a features account, which is based on the principle every year a child is alive he would deposit or thousand dollars into a features account. at age 18, the child would have access to the future adult now for chronological adults, whatever accessory features account. you can use the money for two things. a surprisingly based on the g.i. bill, access to higher education. does not to be a university. postsecondary education or you could use the money for housing. the cumulative $54,000 a year, which not coincidentally has what it would cost for one year at penn or a state-supported institution.
$54,000 interestingly enough is a little bit by the 20% of the meeting the price of a house in the united states. so it is the new g.i. bill for american children in 2012. it is not infested. everybody gets it. it can be used for two things and to do two things that are. although i can help children from zero to 18, i can at least reset the game at age 18. it's a restart. so with all disadvantage that have been at least it has the financial wherewithal to be a homeowner or to get advanced education. the second aspect of the is to rebuild the middle-class. i just don't see any social policies on the horizon. the election is over.
we've heard everything the candidates had to say. not once have anything intelligent but this is how you rebuild the american middle class. so little tiny boat, not all that tells three stories. what doesn't work and why it doesn't work, what does work, what could work and how to make it work. >> host: professor gelles, and you and you come at this in a liberal or conservative point of view? imagine fox news. >> guest: practical. at that 19 of the school of social policy and a fine my color and i'm not particularly interested in taking an ideological point of view. i'm interested in results. the danger of writing a book like this and never be discovered it, makes sure that extremely liberal friends wish i'd never met a book and extremely conservative friends
wish i didn't want to spend this much of the government money. if i could take both sides to be true to the data, then i've done the book i wanted to do. >> host: "the third lie: why government programs don't work- and a blueprint for change" is the name of the book. it is written by the university of pennsylvania's richard gelles producer said dean of the school of social policy and practice. thank you for your time today. >> guest: thank you. >> booktv recently sat down with wayne hsieh, author of "west pointers and civil war." he was interviewed as part of the college series. it is just under 20 minutes. >> host: u.s. naval academy professor, wayne hsieh. "west pointers and civil war" is the name of your book. "west pointers and civil war: the old army in war and peace" but the subtitle. first of all, what do you mean by the old army? >> guest: the old army is used by historians referring to the
regular army. there's a joke the old army is before everywhere. my book starts with a professionalization right after the war of 1812 and. it's about how the process occurs in the old army and how that plays out in the civil war. >> host: give us a snapshot of what the old army prior to the 1812 was late. >> host: before the war of 1812 and this is trying unhistorical literature by historians such as william skelton. we call it a nonprofessional. its officer corps is mostly obtaining positions through political influence as a part of the american political history system is a consequence they are not professionals who went three body of education that were promoted by some system of merit.
they don't perform very well. washington d.c. is the dearly attempts to invade canada don't go very well. it's my impression that canadian look at a great victory of american theaters. so after the war of 1812, you have a business that turns out to be a versus not a select and prepare officers to be in the army to be commanders basically. >> host: who spearheaded that change after 1812? >> guest: the crucial is william scott because his career begins before the war of 1812 assumption may not and extends until the opening of the civil war when he finally retires. jacob brown, a few other officers, the scot is most part. they become very much -- their agenda is very much to build a
proper professional institution and to take expertise, usually european country usually french ingredient to the united states. another major figure would be savanna fare who sent on a mission to collect information about military education. he collects huge numbers of books and material comes back to west point and with the support of people like scott becomes a prominent general to the war of 1812. he's able to systematize the curriculum in a way that had them in case before. >> host: when was west point? >> guest: 1802. but i think historians still argue about what thomas jefferson was really after when the school was founded. but no one disagrees the school is institutionally weak. it's unclear what the purpose of the institution is. there's not destruction